To me, given my limited religious understanding, it is really probable for Islam to be true, but I am not 100% sure. I just don't know the truth. However, I see this to be problematic: this not being sure does not mean not doing anything.
Imagine that I have a computer connected to my brain which its input is my experiences and knowledge and its output is a probability of each religion to be right. Here, I define religion to be a coherent idea involving both God existence and afterdeath. Now, here my argument comes:
If, based on the information I have got from the computer,the most probable religion is Islam (take it just as an example of a religion), then there would be three scenarios: .1. do not do anything .2. do whatever Islam says to do .3. do whatever X says - X is a non-Islam religion which the computer has said its probability not to be 0.
Now, let's see what happens if I do each of these actions. We all know that there is eaither something after death or not. If there is nothing, then it does not matter which scenario shall I take, and if there is something, based on my computer data, it is most probably as Islam says. Therefore, scenario 2 is better than scenario 3 that we can eliminate now.
Between scenario 1 or 2, if I choose 1, I would eaither would not exist after death (which means it does not matter whatever you do, even choosing between the scenarios) or I will (which means I have lost my life and could not reach my purpose of life). However, if I take the second option, I would eaither not exist after death (no gain and no loss) or I will, which in this case, I would most probably be in a good condition as I have done what Islam says.
There is a metaphor for this argument: imagine you are going to drink a coffee which then you would be told by 5 years old boy near you that the coffee is poisonous. The child does not seem to be kidding, and you have no other source of information, except the fact that you have been told that the coffee you have on the desk is toxic. What would you do? Will you drink the coffee and risk your life? Or, you will just prevent drinking it until you find a good reason to avoid or accept drinking the coffee.
In this metaphor, drinking the coffee is like not saying pray, and you are searching for truth but it takes time. What if you die before then? what if you never find what you are looking for? Until then, shall I avoid the risk of not accepting a religion and going to hell, or just in case, say pray! In other words, I would not lose anything if I say pray but might gain something. On the other hand, if I don't say pray, there would be no benefit if I am right (i.e. no afterdeath) and a great loss if I am wrong (hell, punishment, etc.)
Notice that if some one says pray only because of this reasoning, would answer the question of: do you think the god exists? by saying: I don't know! It seems to be paradoxical not to believe (=100% sure) in God but say pray.
Afterall, here are my precise TWO questions: Is this reasoning valid and shall I say pray based on it? If I do, will it be accepted by, let's say, the God of Islam?
Please answer the question by building up an argument upon the question not besides, so that I can link what you mention to my problem and call it an answer.
Thanks in advance